G.Mohanraj v. P.Raju
Case brief
What is this about?
In an appeal against the dismissal of a workmen's compensation claim due to lack of proof of accident and employment, the court dismissed the appeal. It held that the FIR was closed as a mistake of fact, and the appellant failed to prove the accident or his employment status.
What did the court decide?
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal dismissed; connected civil miscellaneous petition closed.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 21.02.2018
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.GOVINDARAJ
C.M.A.NO.6 OF 2009 AND CMP NO.5297 OF 2017
G.Mohanraj ... Appellant/Claimant
Vs. 1.P.Raju 2.Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., 4th Floor, College Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai - 2. ... Respondents/Respondent
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 30 of Workmen's Compensation Act, against the order dated 02.05.2007 passed in W.C.No.542 of 2005 by the Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation - I, Chennai - 6.
For Appellant : Mr.Varadha Kamaraj For Respondent-2 : Ms.R.Sreevidhya J U D G M E N T
Aggrieved over the dismissal of the claim petition made by the appellant, by the Authority under Workmen's Compensation Act, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred before this Court.
- According to the appellant, he travelled as a Loadman in the vehicle bearing registration No.TN04-S-2401 on 04.10.2005. Due to the rash and negligent driving, the vehicle lost his control and met with an accident at about 01.00 a.m. in the morning. FIR was lodged at Tindivanam Police Station in Crime No.1320 of 2005. The appellant was admitted in the Hospital for the injuries suffered by him. On the basis of the injuries suffered, he laid a claim petition before the Authority. The vehicle was insured under the second respondent at the relevant point of time. The Insurance Company denied the contents of the claim petition. On the basis of oral and documentary evidence, the Authority has rejected the claim petition as it was not proved. Aggrieved over the rejection order, the appellant is before this Court.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Commissioner ought not to have decided there was no accident when the occurrence was not disputed by the first respondent.
Whether the Commissioner ought not to have decided the petitioner failed to prove documents showing the accident happened in the course of employment.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
G.Mohanraj
- respondent
P.Raju
- respondent
Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court